Now that the Storm is officially released, someone should do the honor of taking the time to capture a quality image of the device and releasing it for use on Wikipedia. As it stands now, the RIM produced and copyrighted image is breaking fair use because it is more easily reproducible than it was at the time I originally posted it. If you do submit an image, please do Wikipedia a favor and clean your screen beforehand! Cbragg (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Each review is both negative and poorly written, with typos, repetition and poor use of commas and pronouns (such as using the reviewer's name in every sentence instead of he/she/they). Some parts are almost unreadable and were too much for me to correct all at once. MASLEGOMan (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I read through the all individual reviews referenced in the section in their corresponding websites and they all seem to say the same thing about the BlackBerry Storm. The crucial information were highlighted in the summaries. 206.53.144.94 (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for neutrality and reviews, but the criticism section of this article is way out of proportion. A single review does not get a full paragraph in an article; at most a few sentences to summarize the review. See for example "critical reception" sections in films. nneonneotalk 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The reviews section reads as if the person writing it wanted to aggregate all negative reviews into one place. I know there is some positive reception to this device too, but it's not there.-69.122.86.88 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

THE CRITICAL SECTION IS OUT OF PROPORTION!!!!! 217.154.131.202 (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of Blackberry brand and explicitly hate the iPhone, but I get the idea that the Storm's not that big of a hit. Nonetheless, dispute the neutrality, but don't vandalise.

I removed the criticism section again. It is undue weight as currently written. If it is re added, summarize the criticisms in one paragraph. this removal is a content question not vandalism. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest eveyone to just dispute the section's neutrality. But don't vandalise. I can see some useful information in the section that might help some people.

This is not vandalism, please read WP:Undue. This section puts undue weight on the negative side. The burden of proof is on the person adding or reinserting the material. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope the new section is OK. I summarized the previous few reviews into one shorter summary, hoping also to shed some light on the "good" side too. nneonneotalk 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it just feels all positive. I'm going to merge yours with the pre-removed.

This article as currently written is not encyclopedic. It has one section, critical reception, that consists of 11 paragraphs and a lead consisting of 3 paragraphs. There is way to much of the content that is devoted to peoples opinions of the phone. The critical reception section should be reduced down to 1, 2 paragraphs at the most. Wikipedia is not a review site to give every person's opinion of an item. I think we need an another opinion of this article. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed 2 lines inserted in front of paragraphs in the critical recption section. They appeared to say that these two paragraphs were the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors not the opinions of reliable sources. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that long Critical Reception sections are not appropriate for this article, especially given the length of the rest of the article. No single reviewer should get more than two or so sentences (this isn't policy, but it is based on what I've seen of several other such sections, and on "common sense" -- undue weight to the reviewer, or to the section as a whole results otherwise). Please see Wikipedia:Criticism, an essay on this. Anyway, I've edited it to conform more closely to the consensus of the reviewers. I believe it represents a fair view of the various reviews on this product. Feel free to reply below. nneonneotalk 02:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, the first Blackberry Storm was a big flunk! 128MB for application memory, geez! Despite what you say about not being a review site, I believe people do look to Wiki to get information about a product; the physical specifications for example. They hope to find information that the marketing people don't tell us! It's perfectly reasonable that there is a Critical reception section, and it seems that most of the time there was a lot of negative issues with the Storm that outweighed the positive ones. 96.49.224.214 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the term "haptic feedback" really overused in the article? The screen is a button. You press on the screen. It clicks in just like a button. Because it *is* a button. You don't see our article on Keyboard_(computing) use the term Haptic *once*, yet it's the same darn concept. Just wondering if anyone else thinks that in this particular case, "haptic" is 99.9% marketing jargon. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've looked at this article and I had the same impression. In fact, as a BlackBerry Storm user, I'm not even sure haptic is the correct term. I searched all over BlackBerry.com as well and did not find the term haptic used at all. Wikipedia XP (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any error in this table is my own; this content is ripped directly, with little value added, from the RIM web page[1] referenced in the article. I became frustrated marking up the hierarchical layout of this reference in Wikitable; ultimately I turned to the work of Borislav Manolov[2] to convert directly from HTML. I also used Magnus Manske's "slightly altered mirror"[3] of Manolov's script at some point in the building of this table. If this is the proper forum, I'd like to publicly and wholeheartedly endorse these tools. Their utility is unimpeachable and any error in the application of these scripts is my own.Patronanejo (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)PatronAnejo

Similar to the iPhone, this is not an entirely different phone, and it isn't even officially called the Storm 2, just referred to as Storm officially. A few features added and design polished a bit shouldn't have its own article. There are autombiles that have one article that have been changed a lot more than this phone over decades and they have only 1 article for the make/model. Ejfetters (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merghe with Blackberry Storm 2 Agreed, this really is not a different phone(false). While there are a few important updates to the phone hardware, the phone still is the storm and should be on the Blackberry storm page(false - this is the Storm2, with VERY different hardware and features, and a different look! Do not merge!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.205.100.162 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Vote for no merge: We've had a discussion on this on the BlackBerry Storm 2 page. Please consider the Ford Taurus page (first generation link, second...) as an example of why there should be no merge. Markvs88 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

However it could be argued that because of their similarities, they could be in one article. I take the alt view that two articles would suffice as the fundamental difference is that the operation is significanly different, The Storm 2 is to the Storm as what Windows 7 is to Vista 90.192.59.155 (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The comparison is far from close... They both run the same BlackBerry OS 5.0 for one... there are differences, just like there are differences between a 1986 Ford Taurus and a 2010 Ford Taurus, but we have one article for that. Should we make a different article for every year of a car? The model numbers are in sequence also, showing they arent drastically different, 9530/9550. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You might have wanted to actually read the Ford Taurus page before you said that. For every generation, there is a new page. By your own logic, the BlackBerry Storm 2 is another generation of the same device and therefore should get its own page linked to the BlackBerry Storm page. Which should be linked to the BlackBerry page. Markvs88 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the EVDO issue needs to be cleared up. Which models have EVDO, which don't, and what effect that has on those models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.202.243 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BlackBerry Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

I have just modified 2 external links on BlackBerry Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

I have just modified 3 external links on BlackBerry Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.